Legislative Assembly of Ontario

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

TERRY FRASER
TERRY LEWIS
BARRY FRASER

CANADIAN FEDERATION OF LABOUR

IBEW CONSTRUCTION COUNCIL OF ONTARIO
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 773

BOILERMAKER CONTRACTORS' ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO

CONTENTS

Monday 22 November 1993

Labour Relations Amendment Act, 1993, Bill 80, Mr Mackenzie / Loi de 1993 modifiant la Loi surles relations de travail, projet de loi 80, M. Mackenzie

Terry Fraser; Terry Lewis; Barry Fraser

Canadian Federation of Labour

James A. McCambly, president

IBEW Construction Council of Ontario; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 773

Ralph Tersigni, council executive secretary-treasurer

Doug Ryan, council president and business manager, Local 773

Boilermaker Contractors' Association of Ontario

John Schel, president

Tony Fanelli, board chairman

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Chair / Président: Huget, Bob (Sarnia ND)

*Acting Chair / Président suppléant: Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury ND)

*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot ND)

Conway, Sean G. (Renfrew North/-Nord L)

Fawcett, Joan M. (Northumberland L)

*Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)

Klopp, Paul (Huron ND)

Offer, Steven (Mississauga North/-Nord L)

Turnbull, David (York Mills PC)

Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)

*Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands/Kingston et Les Îles ND)

*Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND)

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:

Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND) for Mr Huget

Hope, Randy R. (Chatham-Kent ND) for Mr Klopp

Mahoney, Steven W. (Mississauga West/-Ouest L) for Mr Offer

Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND) for Mr Waters

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:

Miclash, Frank (Kenora L)

Clerk / Greffière: Manikel, Tannis

Staff / Personnel: Richmond, Jerry, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1536 in committee room 1.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

Consideration of Bill 80, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act / Projet de loi 80, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les relations de travail.

TERRY FRASER
TERRY LEWIS
BARRY FRASER

The Acting Chair (Ms Sharon Murdock): The time being 3:36 and all parties being present, I'd like to welcome Terry Fraser, and if you wouldn't mind introducing those who are with you.

Mr Terry Fraser: On my left is Barry Fraser, member of Local 105, IBEW. On my right is Terry Lewis, member of Local 105, IBEW. All of us are construction electricians.

The Acting Chair: We have half an hour for your presentation. It depends on how you want to do this, but if you wouldn't mind leaving some time at the end so that all of us can ask you some questions.

Mr Terry Fraser: I prefer to read my presentation because a lot of questions will be answered in the presentation, so it might save time.

The Acting Chair: Whatever you would like. The floor is yours.

Mr Terry Fraser: Thank you. My name is Terry Fraser. I am 60 years of age and I am a construction electrician. I have been a member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 105, since 1953.

I thank the committee for this opportunity to address the issue of Bill 80 and to state my experience and reasons why I am fully in support of Bill 80.

I have held several elected offices of Local Union 105 of the IBEW. From 1966 to 1970 I was business manager-financial secretary. I was an elected delegate to five constitutional conventions of the IBEW from 1966 to 1986. I was the author of several resolutions to these constitutional conventions of the IBEW. A number of these resolutions called for concessions to the Canadian section of the IBEW to enable the Canadian section to properly deal with Canadian issues. In every instance, the Canadian leader of the IBEW of the day spoke vehemently against any concessions to the Canadian section. By the prestige of his office and the fact that the IBEW USA delegates outnumbered the Canadian delegates by a 10-to-1 ratio, the resolutions, one after another, were defeated.

I was an elected delegate to the IBEW constitutional convention in 1978, when the issue of withdrawing from the Canadian Labour Congress was raised. The Canadian IBEW leader of the day, Mr Ken Rose, stated that the IBEW was not quitting the CLC. What he did not mention was that on his instructions, per capita tax was not being paid to the CLC, and in due time the IBEW would be expelled. By this deception of the Canadian IBEW leader of the day, Canadian delegates to the IBEW convention were denied the opportunity to debate the merits of the issue.

Shortly following this convention, the Canadian IBEW leader, K. Rose, engineered the setting up of the Canadian Federation of Labour, which would be a haven for US-based trade unions that did not want to conform to the minimum standards required for affiliation to the Canadian Labour Congress.

I'd like to read into the record these minimum standards as they appear in the CLC constitution: (1) election of Canadian officers by Canadians, (2) policies to do with national affairs to be determined by the elected Canadian officers and/or members, (3) Canadian elected representatives to have authority to speak for the union in Canada, and (4) international unions to take whatever action is necessary to ensure that the Canadian membership -- and I emphasize Canadian membership -- will not be prevented by constitutional requirements or policy decisions from participating in the social, cultural, economic and political life of the Canadian community.

Another sore point with the IBEW Canadian leader of the day and the CLC was that any local union of an affiliated organization could submit resolutions directly to the Canadian Labour Congress conventions without screening and approval by the head officers of the affiliated organizations, and delegates to the CLC conventions were being selected by the rank and file of the local unions. I raise the issue of the CLC affiliation because it was used as a reference by a member of the Ontario Legislature to condemn Bill 80.

Another reference was made on Bill 80, during second reading, that Bill 80 only refers to construction unions and therefore was discriminatory to construction unions. My knowledge of US-based industrial unions in Canada is that they all allow for Canadian leadership to be elected by Canadians, whereas only one US-based construction union in Canada allows for this, and the procedure followed to allow for this leaves much to be desired. USA-based industrial unions in Canada all allow for Canadian members to hold Canadian policy-setting conferences. Not one USA-based construction union, to my knowledge, allows this. Because of this, members of USA-based construction unions in Ontario and Canada are automatically committed to policies adopted by their USA counterparts.

In 1976, the Ontario government enacted compulsory province-wide bargaining for construction unions in the province. This legislation gave USA-based construction unions in Ontario virtually monopoly control over construction projects in Ontario and, as a result, virtually monopoly control over the working lives of Ontario construction workers. Business managers of construction unions have de facto control over which members work and which members do not work on unionized construction projects in Ontario. Is it any wonder that ordinary members are reluctant or afraid to challenge the status quo or the administrative policies of the leaders of construction unions that they belong to?

A recent example of this intimidation was the proposal by the provincial council of the IBEW (CCO) to eliminate the right of members to vote on their major collective agreements. Every IBEW construction business manager in the province, with the exception of one, supported the proposal. A majority of members affected by the proposal abstained from voting, and the only local to vote against the proposal was the local union whose business manager opposed the proposal.

Ontario construction union leaders have de facto control over pension funds and health and welfare funds, which members pay into and which are very important to them. The rules for eligibility for benefits from these plans can be changed in the blink of an eye and are used as another lever by the leadership to coerce members into toeing the line of the leadership.

I was business manager of Local 105 when the Cliche commission report on construction unions in Quebec was tabled in the Quebec Legislature. The report exposed the racketeering, thuggery and extortion being practised by the USA-based construction local unions in Quebec, a situation that had been ongoing for decades and tolerated by the top USA and Canadian leadership. Not until action was taken by the Quebec Legislature did the democratic rights, dignity and working lives of ordinary unionized Quebec construction workers improve.

I was a delegate to the IBEW convention when the results of an ongoing grievance with several sections of the IBEW constitution by ordinary members of the IBEW was finally resolved by court decisions (Boswell v IBEW). The USA court found many provisions in the IBEW constitution to be discriminatory and illegal and ordered them removed from the IBEW constitution. A request from the convention floor to review thousands of cases where members had been punished and/or banished by these illegal sections of the IBEW constitution was denied by the leadership. I raise these issues because interfering in the affairs of a trade union was used by a member of the Ontario Legislature to condemn Bill 80.

In order to make me ineligible to stand for union elections in 1972, I was robbed of over 18 years of pension fund contributions, a pension fund which, by the way, has no Canadian trustees and is not registered in Canada but which every IBEW construction worker in Ontario and Canada must pay into in order to work.

In 1984 I was elected chairman of the executive board of Local 105. The bylaws of 105 provided for the chairman of the executive board to call special meetings of the board whenever he deemed it necessary. In 1985, for calling a special meeting of the board that the business manager of the day did not approve, I and three other members of the executive board were banished from any local union activities and from running for office from three to nine years by the Canadian IBEW leader of the day.

Bill 80 in its original form, which included the option to vote to disaffiliate, would have assisted greatly to ensure democracy in the construction unions in Ontario. Bill 80 in its present form will at least give cause to the construction union leadership to pause and reflect before they make certain dictatorial moves and will help benefit the democratic rights, dignity and working lives of ordinary Ontario construction workers.

This committee has heard and will hear presentations from some of the brass of construction unions in Ontario. Some will state that everything is hunky-dory in the construction unions in Ontario and it is only a few dissidents who are not happy with the status quo. I ask this committee not to have the wool pulled over their eyes by these presentations. It is only because of intimidation and coercion that more middle leaders and rank and file members are not being heard from.

A free, democratic, sovereign trade union movement is one of the major pillars of a free and democratic and prosperous society. Bill 80 will help to ensure construction unions survive in Ontario for the benefit of Ontario construction workers.

The Acting Chair: Thank you. We have 18 minutes, approximately, so six minutes per caucus, starting with Mr Mahoney from the Liberals.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Thanks very much. Actually, it's nice to hear from somebody from the other side for a change. We've certainly had a lot of people in here who are not in support of Bill 80, as you well know, and some of the references to comments made in the Legislature I assume were made by me; they look familiar.

Answer me a question, though. I was in St Catharines. The vote took place again. We've had I guess arguably somewhere between 70% and 85% of the people in your business against this bill, even against the amended bill with disaffiliation being taken out. There was some sense that the disaffiliation clause was one that, if taken out, would have placated a lot of concerns, but in fact it didn't.

I don't ask you to speak for the people who are against Bill 80; you've articulated your position. But why is it, with some kind of concrete example, that such a huge percentage of the people in the trade labour movement, in the construction unions, are just absolutely against this bill and even against the amended bill?

Mr Terry Fraser: Seated behind me are some members of IBEW in full support of the bill. Again I refer to my brief: the power. Does the business manager of 303 St Catharines oppose Bill 80 or support Bill 80? Do you know?

Mr Mahoney: No, I'm sorry. I don't.

Mr Terry Fraser: I'm sure he's opposed, and he controls who works and who doesn't work. What he wants to -- you meet with some of these people privately, I'm sure you'll get a whole different story.

When they call the vote at a local union meeting, the business manager is sitting there and seeing who's supporting him and who isn't supporting him, and whether he does anything about it or doesn't, it's intimidating. They'll sit there and jot names down and look at who's voting and which way. A member and his family are totally dependent on working, and that business manager is sending him to work. They're not likely to go against what he wants. They'll either abstain or side with them, as happened in that provincial proposal.

Mr Terry Lewis: Could I just add to that too? At the provincial building trades convention, on the motion that was put to them that they continue their opposition against Bill 80 in its present form and that was without any amendments, there was no debate on the fact that disaffiliation was taken out. The motion was passed. It was the original motion that was passed the year before.

Also, you should be aware that at least in the IBEW, which makes up at least a third of that convention, all of the delegates are appointed; there are no elected delegates to the provincial building trades convention. If you're a person who's not on side, you don't get appointed. So that gives you the reason why you don't have any real healthy debate on it, at least from that particular union.

Mr Mahoney: The article that you've provided of September 16, 1986, "Electricians fight `union dictatorship,'" along with a number of the examples, Mr Fraser, that you read in your presentation, seem to be old battles, seem to be you and Mr Rose going head to head, Majesky and you siding up; like union politics.

One of the things that has disturbed me, aside from the specifics of the debate on Bill 80, is the issue of any government having the authority to amend a trade union constitution, one way or another. I mean, I don't care which side of the issue you're on; how can you tolerate it? You may have a friend in Bob Mackenzie, but you don't know who's going to replace him. You don't know who's going to replace Bob Rae. I have some sneaking suspicions, but I'll keep them to myself. But how can you tolerate it? You talk about democracy and freedom and everything else. Are you not just shifting the alleged opportunities for abuse from the internationals, as you put it, to the Legislature, to the government?

1550

Mr Terry Fraser: Let me answer in the same way you asked the question. This isn't an old battle; this battle is still going on. I in fact am applying for early retirement benefits. I have put that in jeopardy by being here. If they change the rules tomorrow, if I go to apply tomorrow and they've changed the rules -- not because I was here, but for some other reason -- I can do nothing about it. I am cut off. There is nowhere I can appeal. I'm out.

It's been an ongoing battle when a situation becomes a monopoly. The construction unions in this province are now a monopoly on the majority of major construction projects in this province. Bill 22, I believe it was, gave them this monopoly control. If I want to work, I have to be a member of the IBEW, or a plumber has to be a member of the association or a carpenter, all the way down the line.

Mr Mahoney: Surely you're not advocating changing that?

Mr Terry Fraser: Oh, no, I'm glad of that, but when an organization or an institution becomes a monopoly and has monopoly power over people, such as Bell Telephone and other monopolies that exist in the corporate world, they are regulated to a point so that they cannot abuse their customers; in our case, the members.

Mr Mahoney: But you have collective agreements, haven't you? Sorry for interrupting.

Mr Terry Fraser: But we had nothing to say about them.

Mr Mahoney: But you have collective agreements that lay things out; so the hiring hall has the rules and everything's in place. I don't understand how you compare this to a monopoly.

Mr Terry Fraser: If you want to touch on the hiring halls, the hiring halls are the total property of the business manager. He will devise the rules he sees fit, and you have nothing to say, no vote on them and no appeal procedure; that is it. That's a constitutional requirement of our organization.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): Thank you, sir, for your presentation. In line with the previous speaker, I tend to feel this is an internal dispute relative to your union, nothing to do with the Ontario Legislature. Why do you feel it's necessary to have legislation to correct this?

Mr Lewis: If I may, I'll go ahead with that. The IBEW, and that's the union we're familiar with, has a historic record of dealing with its members through internal union charges, dissidents. It'd be like in the Legislature, because you spoke against the NDP, you'd be put under trusteeship or removed.

Mr Mahoney: They'd love to do that.

Mr Lewis: And you won't allow it.

What we're looking for here -- and we don't particularly like coming before the government to ask for some minimum standards, some minimum guidelines for some trade union democracy. That's what we're talking about here, trade union democracy. The international building trades unions, particularly the IBEW, have literally charged thousands and thousands of their members and barred them from any political activity. We got elected to go to an international convention, and we were charged and removed as elected officers. The whole point being here, even when you go through the procedure within the structure, they still can get trumped-up charges against you, and the charges are usually a conspiracy against those people they don't want there.

The persons who charge you act as the jury, the judge and the executioner. So it's up to the state to ensure that employers, trade unions, everybody treats their citizenry fairly, and that's all we're asking for in this legislation. Bill 80 simply gives a right to go to an impartial -- and we're not going to the courts; we're going to the labour board. To go to a labour board to seek fairness; that's all it's about.

There is no fairness within the international union structure. First of all, you've got to go to the United States, and even if the appeal procedure was any good, the structure that they put in place takes, in most cases, a minimum of 10 years to get it to the international convention. By that time, everybody and anybody has forgotten about it. It's a question of being able to go to quick redress.

The international building trades unions in this province brought in legislation in the Ontario Labour Relations Act on hiring halls. Because so many people were being discriminated against in the hiring halls, there at least is something in the Ontario Labour Relations Act now that if a worker feels he's been unfairly dealt with in the hiring hall, he can go to the labour relations board.

Mr Terry Fraser: If he can afford a lawyer.

Mr Lewis: If he can afford a lawyer and all those things. But at least there's somewhere else you can go to seek justice. It's all we're asking for here. We're not saying they can't charge you, they can't remove you, they can't put you under trusteeship.

The IBEW pension plan: 20 years before you have a vested right in the pension plan. That's how many years you have to pay into it. It is excluded by all laws. Federal laws don't cover the union pension plan; neither do provincial laws. We say this is unfair. I think under this bill we might get a trustee on a pension. I hope that answers some of your questions about why we need some help from the Legislature in giving us a position to get some fair redress.

Mr Jordan: How long have you been trying to get this help through the Legislature?

Mr Terry Fraser: Resolutions from our organization, I'd say, have been going on for decades, resolutions to the Legislature on different things, including internal union matters. I don't have the specifics here.

Mr Jordan: And without the minister responding to your requests.

Mr Terry Fraser: Bill 22, province-wide bargaining, was requested by the construction unions in Ontario, as legislation, and that was one example.

Mr Jordan: But you're convinced that you couldn't solve this problem without legislation.

Mr Terry Fraser: No, impossible. I've been to five conventions. It's all American issues, and that's the only place in Canada. There's nowhere to resolve anything internally in our organization.

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): Thank you for your presentation. The lines seem to be marked pretty clearly here. The pros and cons on Bill 80 seem to be somewhat of a soft spot now with some of the revisions that are being proposed.

A lot of people who are against Bill 80 are coming in here and saying there's going to be chaos if we bring in Bill 80. Could you tell me exactly what you expect will happen the day after Bill 80 is passed?

Mr Terry Fraser: The members will feel more important in their own organization, like they have some protection against abuse. That's what I think will happen. There will be more democracy and more participation, like you don't just belong to the army. You're not in the army. You have a voice and a vote, and our leadership has to think before it acts irrationally, just like what happened in Quebec when they cleaned out the gangsterism and everything else. It was like a fresh beam of light went over all the construction workers in Quebec when they got rid of the gangsters, and it took the Quebec Legislature to do that. I'm not saying that situation exists.

Mr Cooper: Now they've got the CCU.

Mr Terry Fraser: I'm not even inferring it. But the issue of democracy does not exist in Ontario.

Mr Barry Fraser: I'd like to state that it was mentioned in the House a couple of weeks ago that construction workers now have complete mobility. I'd like to say without Bill 80, we have no mobility. Without the authorization of our business agent, we can't go out and look for work in other towns and other areas in the province. With Bill 80, hopefully we can get back some of what was taken away from us.

Mr Cooper: One of the other major issues that's been brought forward is government interference in constitutions. In your presentation, you said that the government forced the internationals to change their constitutions?

Mr Terry Fraser: Yes, I have a copy of the action that took place in a United States court. They removed several sections, after lengthy hearings and all this, of which I have a copy and I'd be glad to give you several sections under which members were charged and punished and which were discriminatory and illegal under civil rights and human rights and everything else. They were forced to remove them; they didn't remove them voluntarily.

Mr Cooper: But the constitutions were changed.

Mr Terry Fraser: In the United States by American law. We don't even know if those changes apply to us in Canada.

Interjection.

Mr Terry Fraser: They don't.

Mr Cooper: Is there anything in Bill 80 that changes the constitution?

Mr Terry Fraser: Yes, it dilutes the power of the president.

Mr Cooper: Or does it work beside the constitution?

Mr Terry Fraser: It works with it, but it dilutes the power of the top leadership that make moves without consultation, and what have you, with the memberships and the local union leadership, the middle leaders, and what have you.

1600

Mr Cooper: So you would say, after Bill 80 is passed that things will carry on as usual for most of the workers. They would still go to work the next day.

Mr Terry Fraser: Oh, yes, with a better relationship.

Mr Mahoney: Where are they working?

The Acting Chair: Did you want to say something?

Mr Lewis: Yes. The four major parts of this bill, as I understand it, are the charging of officers, which I would dearly like to be extended to members too, because really all that's being protected here are officers of unions. But going along with the trustees, work jurisdiction and trusteeship, the international union will still be able to put a local under trusteeship, it will still be able to change work jurisdiction, charges will still go on. But at least now, if this legislation is passed, we can go to an impartial tribunal, hopefully, for a fair shot of getting a fair hearing.

Presently, that doesn't exist. Charges were filed against six officers in Hamilton, trumped-up charges, the whole works. We took it to the Supreme Court of Ontario and Judge Reid just played Pontius Pilate and said: "Oh, this is an internal union matter. Come back in 10 years if you still think it's interesting."

This is how ridiculous that structure is. The present Labour Relations Act has some vehicles. If you feel that you've been discriminated against on a job, you can go to the labour board. But let me tell you, you go to the local labour board and every local union in the province, if not in the country, has got your name. So when you're out there looking for work, you had better know that: you took your union to the labour relations board.

Most of the ones who are coming in here are full-time roadmen, most of them are under the control of their international union, and, if not, all of the supporters of Bill 80 you'll find very few rank and file.

Mr Cooper: One of the things that has been brought up by some of the other presenters on jurisdictional dispute, right now the way we're planning on proposing the legislation is the international comes to the labour relations board and proposes a jurisdiction. Do you think that would be better, to have it complaint-driven such as the trusteeship where they change jurisdiction and then the membership would complain?

Mr Lewis: On the question of work jurisdiction, 99% of the time, whenever work jurisdiction is changed, it's changed to put a local union and its officers in place. So any procedure that would give, again, a tribunal a chance to say, "Well, are you doing this simply because there is a problem within this union?" -- "dissidents," as they call them; we'd like to call it opposition, but they use the term "dissidents" -- it gives a vehicle for that local union and that international union to say: "Look, it has nothing to do with that. These are the causes and the reasons why we're doing it."

Most business managers, if they're honest, will tell you that if they don't play ball with the international they can have their work jurisdiction just removed by the stroke of a pen, and that is extremely unfair. So, yes, I think that in the case of the jurisdiction business it again gives a vehicle for them to deal fairly with it.

Mr Barry Fraser: Right now, the international has no recourse. It doesn't have to justify anything it does. It just does it. It's mandatory. There's nothing you can do about it. With Bill 80, hopefully, when it's passed, they will have to justify any of these arbitrary moves they make. That is our big hope, that they have to justify it, and hopefully we could stop them.

The Acting Chair: I want to thank you very much for coming here today. We appreciate the comments. It is the first presentation in support of Bill 80 that we've heard so it's doubly good to hear from the other side.

CANADIAN FEDERATION OF LABOUR

The Acting Chair: The next presenter group is Canadian Federation of Labour, the president, Mr James McCambly. Mr McCambly, welcome. You have half an hour; I'm sure you heard me give the instructions to the previous presenter. How you use your time is up to you, but we would like the opportunity to ask some questions.

Mr James A. McCambly: Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I too would like to give you the opportunity for questions so I'll try to go through the written presentation as quickly as I can. I'd first like to thank all of the committee members for allowing me to be here and make representation on behalf of the Canadian Federation of Labour on the proposed amendments to the labour act, Bill 80.

I might just say -- a bit of background on myself -- that I have been president of the Canadian Federation of Labour since its inception. Before that, I was director of the building trades in Canada for 11 years, and prior to that, business manager and business representative of a building trades union in Alberta for a good number of other years, so I'm telling my age. At least I'd like to set the record that I've been around in the industry for quite a while.

The organization, the Canadian Federation of Labour, has some 10 unions that are involved in construction and about a quarter of a million members throughout Canada in various work sections, but a good lot of them in construction. It's on behalf of their members that I'm here to voice opposition to Bill 80.

It's our view that this legislation unfairly singles out the construction industry, subjecting it to undemocratic government intervention. In fact, this unprecedented and unwelcome legislation is opposed by union members far beyond the building and construction trades.

The long-term prospects for Ontario should Bill 80 pass are very disturbing. By reducing the stability of construction unions, the Ontario government would be destabilizing the entire construction sector. It's not a promising picture for the future. Major developers might avoid investing in this province, especially in long-term, large-scale construction projects, and Ontario's normally stable construction industry would have to rely on the labour board to provide stability while judging dissident requests as to their just cause.

Bill 80 represents an unprecedented, unjustified and completely unacceptable government incursion into the constitutional affairs of democratic unions. Giving any arm of government such power to hobble a union's ability to function on its constitution violates basic democratic principles. It is our view that this legislation is also in direct violation of an International Labour Organization convention by interfering in the legitimate operations of the union organization. You may know that a complaint has been filed with the ILO.

The ILO convention states, in part: "Workers' and employees' associations shall have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives and to formulate their programs....The public authorities shall refrain from any exercise which would restrict the right or impede the lawful exercise thereof." That's number 87, article 3, of the convention.

In this sense, the CF of L is acting not only on behalf of its affiliated unions, but also to alert the committee members to the dangerous implications of this legislation for the union movement as a whole. Although the government has chosen to target only one group of unions, it will open the door for another government to pass an amending clause making Bill 80 applicable to the operations of all unions.

The minister has said that he is responding to numerous complaints he has heard over the years and has conjured up images of all-powerful international unions dictating to and controlling weak Ontario locals. This image is not only insulting to construction unions, which pride themselves on their democratic operations, but it is wrong. In fact, Ontario construction locals are large, strong, healthy and do an exceptionally good job in representing their members. The minister has not provided evidence supporting claims that there is a problem in Ontario of unwarranted interference in construction union relations.

Trusteeship, the power to closely supervise or undertake temporary control of union locals, occurs in extremely rare cases and only in situations of fraudulent behaviour or inability to perform the duties required by the constitution. For an international union to assume trusteeship, it must first undertake constitutionally determined procedures of due process. Furthermore, there are already legally required procedures for the establishment of temporary management of a local.

Bill 80 completely fails to bring in more democracy. Instead, it gives the Ontario Labour Relations Board arbitrary power to make judgements and intervene or supersede a union constitution. It could provide government support to destroy a union.

It is ironic that construction unions have been singled out for democratic improvement, given that their locals are probably more autonomous than any other type of union in Canada. Their autonomy is seen in their financial relationship between the local and the parent. Construction locals control their own purse-strings, collecting dues and sending a per capita to head office, while dues of industrial unions flow directly from the member to the parent, who then distributes the funds to the locals. Industrial unions have a continuous control over locals that construction unions do not have and do not want to have.

1610

Ontario's construction industry also has one of the most envied systems of collective bargaining in Canada and, many say, in North America. Changes should only come from the industry, the labour and management representatives, not be contrived unilaterally by government against the will of industry. Construction unions are able to offer contractors effective industrial relations and the highest quality and most skilled labour force. Benefit packages provided to unionized construction workers are second to none in this or any other industry employing workers on a cyclical, temporary or short-term basis.

The nature of the intervention will destroy the ability of the unions to operate effectively. The constitutions of construction unions have been developed to create stable and mature bargaining relations necessary to the particular and complex demands of the construction industry. Union constitutions formalize and describe the relationship and the functions of the union and ensure due process within the relationship of all the parties, namely, the locals and the members of the locals. They also protect the long-term health of the union.

Construction trade unions must be understood as more than a union protecting its members in the workplace. The construction labour force is a highly skilled, seasonal, mobile force, and it works within a highly competitive industry. These factors demand that the construction union be an effective, central, coordinating body providing specialized services and benefits on behalf of members, both locally and across the country. Construction unions also pool the resources of the members to provide advocacy services as well as dental, health, pension and other benefits that are second to none.

The union creates locals for the very purpose of addressing these issues at the local level. In Ontario, bargaining in the construction sector, even outside the ICI, is sometimes shared with the local but most often is addressed exclusively by the local unions. Forcing the creation of a body that would come under the minister's direction constitutes unnecessary and damaging interference in the workings of the union, ie, under subsection 138.2(4) to create a council.

The union has the right and is obliged to ensure that what happens at the local level is in the best interests of all members of the union as a whole. Do not forget that the strength of a unionized worker comes not only from the brothers and sisters of the local but also from the thousands of members of that union. This is what the union movement is about.

There is no need or justification for government intervention in an area that is logically and rightfully under the authority of the union. Two areas that Bill 80 affects, jurisdiction and trusteeship, would be extremely damaging to construction unions in Ontario's construction industry.

Section 138.3 would give the local union control over jurisdiction, including claiming new geographical, sectoral or work jurisdiction. The construction unions have worked hard over the years to develop a system for addressing jurisdictional issues. Jurisdictions are assigned according to the needs of the labour market. A local is an organization that must be economically viable in order to pay for its administrative costs such as staff and rent. If the market in a certain jurisdiction, for example, cannot support a local, then the local may have its jurisdiction changed or be merged with another.

This is a difficult process for all involved. It is easy to expand the authority of or create an organization, but it is difficult, however, to reduce the authority of or merge organizations. Ultimately, only the unions are the appropriate and capable authority to assign jurisdictions.

I want to make some particular mention with regard to large projects, an area that I have had some personal experience in. The unions would be unable to guarantee labour peace on very large projects; thereby, the prospects of large-scale project investments in Ontario would be jeopardized. Many are unaware of the critical role of construction unions in promoting labour peace on major construction sites. In fact, most people do not know that construction unions often offer to provide no strike, no lockout agreements for very large projects.

Examples across Canada where agreements were established to meet this objective include projects like the St Lawrence Seaway, Churchill Falls hydro in Labrador, British Columbia Hydro projects, Manitoba Hydro projects, Syncrude heavy oil development, Regina heavy oil upgrader, Pine Point mining development in the Northwest Territories, Scott Paper in Nova Scotia, Nova Scotia Power, and currently under way are the Hibernia offshore oil development and the fixed link to PEI.

These projects might very well not have been undertaken if the parent construction union was not able to assure stability for the duration of the project. This stability would not have been possible in any province subject to provisions similar to those contained in Bill 80. As soon as a major project begins, hundreds of millions of dollars are committed for investment. If the project experiences work stoppages, especially towards the completion of the project, the cost of downtime can easily be in the millions of dollars per day.

Project agreements are normally negotiated between representatives of the client and/or prime contractor and the parent unions and their local unions. Bill 80 would make overall planning impossible. Contractors of large construction projects would have no one in the industry to turn to for assurance of stability. It is through the joint strength and cooperation of the parents that good agreements are drawn up that guarantee stability to workers as well as the contractors.

There would only be two other options to attempt to create stability. One might be the government choosing to manage the construction industry by ad hoc legislation, or the other could be leaving it to the discretion of local unions that have the jurisdiction. We have some examples where the latter practice was employed. In these instances, work stoppage cost overruns were unbelievably high, and these are very bad examples of how to deal with very major projects.

With respect to the government managing industry, you'll find unanimous agreement in this industry, as well as in many others, that the private sector -- business and labour -- should negotiate its own deals and not look to government to manage its affairs.

Work in this province undertaken by Ontario Hydro, specifically the long-term major construction work undertaken to build a series of Candu nuclear facilities, was assured an on-time completion through long-term agreements. Once again, the parent unions had a very significant role in negotiating this pact in the early 1970s, and although contract provisions allowed conditions to be renegotiated, the pact was intended to last indefinitely or until terminated by either party. While it has been continuously renegotiated, there has never been a single strike or lockout in its entire 20-year history.

I'll now turn to the provision that requires a "just cause" standard for the establishment of temporary management of a local trusteeship, which would be decided by the OLRB.

We oppose such a process. Having the OLRB determine "just cause" interferes with and supersedes the constitutions of unions. The authority to establish temporary trusteeship is essential to ensuring the union's credibility and effectiveness. In any instance of trusteeship, there are hearings, appeal procedures and other features of due process within the union constitution mirroring what exists in modern and accepted legal doctrine. The role of the board is to ensure that due process actually is carried out. Therefore, if unjustly imposed, a trusteeship can be challenged under the union's constitution, as well as the existing laws of Ontario, even suggesting that "just cause" to justify government intervention is wrong.

While "just cause" is important and is integral to due process, it is not easily defined and is virtually always arguable from two points of view. This would mean that the labour board would be asked to intervene in virtually every proceeding in spite of existing constitutional procedure for due process. It is simply not in the interests of a union to unnecessarily place a local union under temporary trusteeship.

Although there have been a few trusteeships, most have been at the invitation of local executives when a situation needed to be changed. However, the vast majority of locals manage their business properly and autonomously uphold the terms of their charter.

1620

The final provision I would like to address is the amendments to Bill 80 addressing pension plans, which will very likely upset a careful balance that has been achieved through many years of negotiations. We suggest that if the government can actually demonstrate any problem with some of the best plans in Canada, it should sit down with the relevant organizations and work out solutions.

In conclusion, the Canadian Federation of Labour opposes Bill 80 because of its unwarranted damaging of the construction unions and the construction sector in Ontario. We strongly recommend that the proposed legislation be withdrawn in its entirety.

The third-party government interference into union constitutions of the construction sector which the bill is proposing is unjustified and unheard-of in the history of trade unionism in Canada. If this bill passes, it opens the door for any future anti-labour government to expand its influence not only into industrial and other types of unions, but also to increase government control of unions in every aspect of their roles and duties to their members. Bill 80, if implemented, has the potential to turn the clock back 100 years for the trade union movement in Canada.

If the government wishes to address any issues, real or imagined, the Canadian Federation of Labour and all of its affiliated construction unions are willing to sit down and discuss the matter with the government of Ontario. Once again, I thank you for the opportunity of making this submission.

The Acting Chair: Thank you very much. There's just a little over four minutes for each caucus, beginning with Mr Jordan.

Mr Jordan: Thank you for your presentation, sir. It was very informative and it gives rise to the question, why is this continually being referred to as Bob White's payback?

Mr McCambly: I don't know if there's any justification in such a comment being made. I must say that it is strange that the unions that are affected are construction unions and, by far, predominantly within the Canadian Federation of Labour, but that does not justify such a comment. We'd like to just deal with the issue on its face value and not try to read anything into it that isn't obvious.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Correct me if I'm wrong. You used the word "dissidents"?

Mr McCambly: Yes.

Mr Hope: Why did you use the word "dissidents"?

Mr McCambly: Under the circumstance where I used it, there are dissidents who raise objections that may -- particularly by the previous people who were on the docket it was taken as an exception. There could be other terms that might be used, but they are the people who oppose the process.

Mr Hope: I guess those individuals who are opposed to the administration of a local union would be categorized as dissidents, and I take exception to the word "dissidents" being used simply if some local union leadership wish to express the views of their membership.

I've come from a union that has left its international parent and has formed its own national union, and I understand some of the stuff that is being said here quite clearly. I was involved, out in Newfoundland, with the issue that took place out there between the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union and the CAW. I was also involved with the CAW-UAW separation that took place.

One of the concerns I do understand, which was explained in the earlier presentation, is that you're saying there's an appeal mechanism. I was watching your process. I firmly believe, and my father and I come from the labour movement, that more democratic rights of a local affiliate would be the powers and the power-building of a trade union versus the central administration.

What you're saying here is that there are other unions against it. I guess I should ask you what other unions are opposed to this legislation and how you would see this allowing some other government -- and I take exception to the word you used, "anti-labour" -- to amend this bill to allow further deterioration of the labour movement.

I'm having a hard time understanding where you're coming from with your arguments, because your pension is centrally administered, and if you don't have the availability of local unions to make decisions based on their local membership, you lose the opportunity that's there, because you're central.

The Acting Chair: You have about two minutes, Mr McCambly, to answer all of that.

Mr McCambly: There are several points you've made. First of all, with regard to the word "dissidents," people in opposition is really what I was making reference to.

When you talk about pensions, most of the pension plans of unions in construction are jointly trusteed at a local level, there are some that are jointly trusteed at a provincial level, and there are a very few that are national. There has been reference to some internal plans, which are quite insignificant by comparison, within a union itself, but most of the plans are jointly trusteed within the province now. If there are problems with other ones, we say deal with them as the case comes up.

I know which other unions are opposing, but I'd let them speak for themselves. I think some of them are looking to get on the docket now.

But let me just say one thing. Present company excepted, believe me, there are some governments that are not favourable to unions. Even if this were perfect legislation at this time, to condone interference and intervention into a constitution of a union by any government is not justified.

Mr Mahoney: I guess Mr Kormos and Mr Morrow and Mr Swart would be dissidents. I'm just trying to understand the difference. I'm opposition, they're dissidents, because they're on the inside of that particular group. I understand that difference, and we can argue over those words if we want.

I'm concerned about any potential problem with regard to the ability to move around within Canada. If there are different rules in the construction industry in Ontario, you make the point, as do many others, that certain investments may not be made by national or international investors, be they megaprojects or simply real estate-type projects. They may go away for fear of problems on the job site.

What does it do to the construction worker in Kenora, who probably works in Manitoba a lot? Do you see any problems? I'm not talking about disaffiliation so much as I am about a different playing field, so to speak.

Mr McCambly: One of the real advantages of the unions that are predominantly in construction, certainly not with any exclusive or unilateral control of construction -- I kind of wish we had it, but we don't -- is that the international unions concentrate a great deal on making it possible for people to move within a province and between provinces to take up work opportunities when the local workforce is exhausted or is employed. If different rules were established or jurisdictions were peeled off or hived off, then it would make it very difficult, I think, for those people to move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Mr Mahoney: Just follow me a little bit on that. If you have a construction worker in Ontario with a certain skill and that person winds up going to another province and there's a dispute over the jurisdiction -- presumably, they were called in because either the skill was not available in the province they're talking about or they needed additional workers. Never mind across the border; let's talk about interprovincial construction. Who's going to settle the dispute in Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatchewan or the province of Quebec, if we ever get fairness back into that game? Who's going to settle it with Bill 80 in place? Is there going to be some right? Are they going to go on the basis they've always operated, where the international comes in and goes by the rules that have been in place since 1920, or is somehow a labour relations board in each of these provinces going to have to get involved in this dispute?

Mr McCambly: I can't imagine how a separate dispute-settling procedure in one province would fit into what is now being established throughout Canada. There is a national appeal mechanism that is being created now in Ottawa for people from all parts of the country to appeal issues to, but that is from local umpires that resolve jurisdictional disputes. If there is an ability of a board to set up its own rules, I have no idea how that could ever fit into a national system. It is really quite complex and difficult to judge these jurisdictions.

1630

Mr Mahoney: I'm out of time, I think, but the pension issue we've heard as a concern: lack of representation on a pension board for Canadian members, a requirement that they must pay into a fund they have no say in, those types of things. Can you give us your perspective? If indeed there are problems -- and by the way, there may be some areas where there are problems. I've said from day one that if there are problems in the construction labour movement, let's get everybody together and sit down and figure out how we can resolve those problems, including the internationals and people such as yourself.

Do you share the concerns that have been expressed about the pensions? If so, do you see a way to solve that problem?

Mr McCambly: I assure you that if there are problems, we're prepared to sit down and talk about them and find a solution. I can tell you that the construction unions in Ontario and in Canada should be justifiably proud to have the most control for the actual members who have the pension, more than any other group in the country. It's been leadership that other unions, other organizations, would love to have followed years ago. The jointly trusteed control by business and the union is giving a say to workers, there are no unsatisfied claims, it's fully funded. These plans are as good as exist anywhere in the country, and if there are problems we'd love to address them, because we don't want them to be subject to criticism.

The Acting Chair: I want to thank you very much, Mr McCambly --

Mr Hope: Madam Chair, the term "local umpire" was used, and I wonder if he could give me a definition. He mentioned "local umpire" in his comments and I want to know what he meant.

Mr McCambly: There are umpires that have been established in some provincial jurisdictions in British Columbia, Newfoundland and some other provinces who basically make determinations under the union system of determining jurisdiction. They would have an opportunity to appeal nationally in Canada.

The Acting Chair: I want to thank you --

Mr Mahoney: Don't we all get one more question?

The Acting Chair: No.

Mr Hope: I was just clarifying.

The Acting Chair: I would like to thank you very much, Mr McCambly, for taking the time to come down and speak to us.

The 4:30 presenter, Mr Doug Ryan, the business manager for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 773, and the 5 o'clock presenter, Ralph Tersigni, executive secretary-treasurer of the IBEW Construction Council of Ontario, have asked to make a joint presentation with 45 minutes rather than using the full hour. We have very kindly agreed, particularly as it's opposition day and there will be a vote before 6 o'clock.

Mr Hope: Madam Chair, may I ask legislative research to pull up for us the information on the local umpires which was used in the presentation today? He says it's in a jurisdiction where local umpires are being used, and I'm wondering if we could have some information on that.

The Acting Chair: He is now taking the note.

IBEW CONSTRUCTION COUNCIL OF ONTARIO
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 773

The Acting Chair: Could you identify yourselves for the record, please. There are 45 minutes and you can use the time however you wish; however, we would like an opportunity to ask questions.

Mr Ralph Tersigni: For the record, Madam Chair, my name is Ralph Tersigni, executive secretary-treasurer of the IBEW Construction Council of Ontario, which is the employee bargaining agency for the province. With me is Doug Ryan, who is the president of our council and also the business manager of Local 773 in Windsor.

This brief to the standing committee on resources development re Bill 80 is presented from the Construction Council of Ontario in conjunction with Local 773, presented by myself and Doug.

I should point out prior to beginning that you'll see in one of our exhibits, namely, the Principal Agreement, that although the employee bargaining agency represents Local 353, it is the only one that's listed there that would be in favour of Bill 80. The rest of the locals are opposed to it, and we carry the position of the rest of the locals listed, with the exception of Local 353.

For the purpose of this submission, we wish to place in evidence an examination of the constitution of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers as exhibit 1, which is this one here.

The Principal Agreement, which is an all-sector agreement, we'll call exhibit 2.

Exhibit 3 is a brief excerpt from the Construction Craft Jurisdiction Agreements, which is that thick. I realize that time is short. However, there is the preface, which tells you what this is about. There's also a table of contents. If we could have made the complete book available, we would have, but I'm sure that you can see there's quite a bit. We have taken an example of what that construction craft agreement's purpose is, its history and that, that you can read in the preface at your perusal.

With a constitution that's over 100 years in its making, a principal agreement that spans eight decades and jurisdiction agreements between trades that commenced in 1927, it would be impossible, in our opinion, to explore and test the consequences of the current bill in its entirety in the 15 minutes allotted -- thank you for the extra 15 -- much like the opposition parties, I read in Hansard, had 10-minute notice at second reading.

Since time does not permit, we therefore, for the purposes of this paper, wish to, with respect to our exhibits, scrutinize by trial -- and I say that sincerely; I put them all on trial in front of you; we've nothing to hide -- our constitution, our agreement and this international agreement, for your perusal. You'll also find that exhibits 1 and 2 have been highlighted in yellow. That can direct you right to some of the references we were making earlier.

Again, since time does not permit, we do, however with those exhibits, want to put Bill 80 on trial with an inspection of the following sections of the proposed bill.

The definition of "jurisdiction," when you read it in 138.3 and 138.5, which is all we want to deal with today, has to be read in context with the definition contained in the bill that includes geographic, sectoral and jurisdiction.

We also took the liberty to go to Webster's dictionary for a definition of the word "autonomy," which is found in there to be "self-governing, independent."

Again, on page 2, we've quoted sections 138.3 and 138.5.

Over to page 3: Sections 138.3 and 138.5 would, once enacted, in our opinion:

(1) interfere with our existing autonomous rights to participate fully and freely in the union we love and have sworn allegiance to;

(2) invalidate sections of our constitution;

(3) obstruct our rights to freely bargain our Principal Agreement; and

(4) void existing and future -- which I called exhibit 3 -- peace agreements contained in the Construction Craft Jurisdiction Agreements, all of which are set forth in the following examples.

I'd like to go through this, and when I come back I might cross-reference three. The whole purpose of this is to point out to the committee and this Legislature that once a government interferes with a constitution of a union, that constitution finds its way, and has, into the collective agreement -- which we're about to show you -- in more than one case.

It also finds its way into agreements outside the IBEW, which is the international building trade agreements.

We want to point out some of these areas to you with respect to what we're saying.

1640

As far as the constitution goes with respect to 138.3 and 138.5, the constitution, article I, sections 1, 2 and 3 are found on page 7. I'll just read through them quickly: the international president, the international vice-president, the international executive council, local union charters, rules for local unions, the freedom of association, jurisdiction, invalidation by a tribunal of competent jurisdiction.

For a second, I'd like to refer the committee to that. If you take out exhibit 1 and turn to page 97 of the constitution, exhibit 1, and you go down to section 3, it should be highlighted there. It says:

"If any section of this constitution or part thereof should be held inoperative or invalid by a tribunal of competent jurisdiction" -- I'll stop right there. This body sitting here today is such a tribunal of competent jurisdiction -- "the remainder of this constitution, or the application of said section or part thereof to persons and circumstances, other than those to which it has been held invalid, shall not be affected thereby."

It goes on to say what they'll do at the next international convention.

What we're saying, if Bill 80 is enacted the way it is now, then all these sections that are subject to that scrutiny, and if it went to the labour board by whatever mechanism and was found invalid, we in Ontario would not be able to freely participate in the convention, an international convention, to decide what should or should not be contained in this document.

One example, the Principal Agreement, which is exhibit 2: I've happened to point out the scope clause, geographic jurisdiction based on what's contained in the bill, work jurisdiction section 5, sectoral jurisdiction or linework, work jurisdiction between IBEW classification, letters of understanding page 20.

For a second, let's turn to that. If you take out our collective agreement, turn to page 20. If you follow 138.5 it talks about a parent union or council of trade unions not interfering in the autonomy of a local union.

That letter of understanding on page 21 -- I'm sorry, it should be highlighted; has everybody got it highlighted in exhibit 2? -- is a result of collective bargaining by our council, accepted by our members. What it does is it defines or sets out what the jurisdiction's going to be internally between linemen and electricians. You'll see that it was dated the 18th day of February 1993.

If you take section 138.5 and one of our local unions says, "Well, wait a second, down in Windsor on May 1, that work was being done by linemen or electricians. I want to exercise my rights," with Bill 80, wherever it goes to, the board or wherever, says, "Well, by the right, Mr Ryan's right." The autonomy in his local prior to that, the work jurisdiction which Bill 80 sets forth, they're talking about work, sector-wise, says "You've got to give that back."

What I'm trying to point out here is that this bill, when it's unmasked, or when you look at it and scrutinize it and put it to the test, prevents us from negotiating our principal agreement with our contractors.

While we're on that, if you just go to right at the beginning of the book, scope of the agreement, on page 1, union jurisdiction, you've got that highlighted, that our employers agree "to recognize the inside and outside jurisdictions as outlined" in our constitution -- there's a direct reference to our constitution -- "in the performance of all electrical work."

In other words, they've got nothing to say about how we internally, our employers, say what belongs to a lineman and what belongs to an electrician, right in the collective agreement.

Again, as I say, when you look at the authority of the constitution and the authority that's vested in the international president, who gets that authority by convention, by elected people from local unions to participate in those conventions and adopt the constitution by a majority vote and resolutions, that's how you get from the constitution into the collective agreement.

On page 5, we talk about the Construction Craft Jurisdiction Agreements. That's exhibit 3. That's the book that's published by the Bureau of National Affairs in Washington. It contains jurisdiction agreements outside of the IBEW with the other construction trades. The reason for it is that we have to build buildings and we've all got to get along when you get 14 unions on one site.

If you go right to the back, the table of contents, right through that, I brought for you an agreement on jurisdiction between ourselves and the plumbers that was signed by Marty Ward and Charles H. Pillard, Ward being the president for the UA in Washington and Pillard the IBEW president.

If you just disregard the one on assembly of transformers and go with the one on instrumentation, which is found on 157 and over on 158, you'll see the one on stress-relieving. We were involved in that case. I personally had the UA in front of the labour board here in Ontario. I guess they saw it wasn't going too good, so they got hold of their international president, who got hold of our international president, who put two committees together, and that's the result of what happened. That, by the way, is applied to every jurisdiction in North America, coast to coast, north to south. That's how we work that out.

Where Pillard got that authority from is back in the constitution. I'm going to take you back into exhibit 1, the duties of the international president. It's found on page 25, right at the top, section 12. The convention gives our international president authority to make these agreements that we're talking about in here. It says, "To enter into, or authorize an IVP, representative, or assistant to enter into, agreements with any national or international labour organization or association of employers, or with any company, corporation or firm doing an interstate or interprovincial business in electrical work, to cover the entire jurisdiction of the IBEW." That's where he gets the authority.

Now, had the UA at the time had Bill 80 and this happened, or if it was me, I'd have run and sought refuge under it and said: "Hey, you're interfering with my bloody autonomy. My members were working on that till you guys cut this deal." The government tariff says: "You're damn right. The IBEW's right. You can't change it, Mr Pillard."

So what happens? His hands are tied. It's changed everywhere in the IBEW: all across Canada, all across the United States, with the exception of Ontario. Then you go back to what I said before, right at the back, about the invalidation thing, and then read on. The invalidation says at the next convention, they have to look at that. They say, "Are we going to accept this or not accept it?"

As you will see a little bit later on, what we really think Bill 80 means -- our suspicions anyway -- is it will, in our opinion, create serious problems, far beyond what I think might even be the honest attempt of Bill 80. Doug and I scrutinized a lot of things in here, and that's why we just stayed with these two sections, because the further you get into it, the more consequences of Bill 80 we found. So we're just going to stick to these two.

So on page 6 you will see we say: "By an examination of the authority of our constitution given to it by elected rank-and-file members at convention, one can trace the integral connections between the constitution" to the principal agreement to what I call the peace agreements between trades. It involves jurisdiction, whether it's work, geographic, sectoral, internal or external. You can follow the authority given by convention to the elected officers; as I just pointed out, that given to Charlie Pillard at the time to make this agreement with the united association. If you examine this, and I hope you do, you can scrutinize how this authority translated into the bargaining agreement and in the peace agreements that are accepted in every jurisdiction in North America, internally and externally.

1650

Bill 80, on its face, can invalidate any or all of the foregoing since the law supersedes a constitution, a principal agreement or any other agreement, or as the bill says, right in its own context or otherwise.

Besides all of the foregoing, if Bill 80 is good, I say put it to the test. The question that's foremost is one of the Charter of Rights. If it's good for one union, why isn't it good for all unions? A constitution, whether it's a union, a political party, a religion, a service club, should have all laws applied to it. You've got Highway 401 that says the speed limit's 100 kilometres, not just for me but for everybody. If Bill 80 is good, and maybe it is, would it stand the test of every union in this country?

I want to point something out now. The IBEW's the only construction union in this province that crosses every sector. We have locals with industrial agreements. Brother Ryan here has an agreement with the Windsor school board. It's not affected by this legislation because it's not construction, but they're members of his union.

I ask you, if you have time, to scrutinize what we've put out, put it to the test yourself. Maybe you'll come up and say, "This is not really going to affect anyone." We think it will. If it stood that test, a constitution is a constitution, no matter -- like I say, people get together, they have a democratic vote.

We had an example up in our party -- I belong to the Liberals, as you might suspect -- where in the last federal election, Frank Bean, who was a former member of Parliament, challenged the local association on how they went about electing their delegate. What Frank had forgotten or didn't take the time to find out was that the local Liberals and the authority had changed the way they'd done it by a vote of the local association. He got mad and he ran as an independent.

If there was something done wrong there and that association had done something wrong, then they should be scrutinized by these kinds of things, because the constitution is something that we get by living in a democratic party. It gives us the right to assemble freely, to associate freely and make free decisions.

It would appear to me that in this case the answer is no. It appears that the action has been arbitrary. When you put Bill 80 on trial by examination, scrutiny and cross-reference, you uncover the true purpose of Bill 80 in our minds.

Mr Mackenzie said to the House on second reading, October 4, and this is a quote, "As promised, we have consulted widely on these and other issues arising from first reading of the bill." This is simply not true. No employee bargaining agency has been contacted to our knowledge or had an input in this bill until today. Is that not correct?

Mr Doug Ryan: We haven't been contacted, no.

Mr Tersigni: He went on to say when he concluded, "Our ultimate goal is to enact a law that brings a sense of balance and fairness to the relationship between local unions, their members and their international parents."

Mr Mackenzie's only statement to myself, in front of international vice-president Woods, when we asked him a question a year before this at Evans's retirement party, was, and I'll quote it because I wrote it in my diary, "You fellows know this is not my doing. If it was, I would have included it in Bill 40. It's coming from up above. It's not my agenda." So our question is, whose damned agenda is it?

In our opinion, Mr Mahoney and Mrs Witmer had it correct. They said it's payback time for the CLC, written right in Hansard. I don't know whether that's true or not, but that was their opinion. It's the first time that a government in Ontario will enact legislation that's going to interfere with the internal politics of a union, just construction unions, with our principal agreements and our peace agreements.

Bill 80, when you uncover it and unmask it, places language into the Ontario Labour Relations Act that facilitates or eventually mandates a divorce by construction local unions from the international parents. And I'll tell you something. If we didn't want to belong to the IBEW, I don't need Bob Rae to help me out of it. If we didn't like the IBEW, we would get out ourselves, because the act now gives us that right. But there seems to be a perception that something more is needed. I say if it's needed, then it should be good for all unions, and if it's needed, it should be good for all constitutions. I ask you to think about that point.

When it's applied arbitrarily, as it appears to be, to just the construction unions, I say it's a violation of our rights and freedom of assembly and association. It is arbitrary. It's a denial of just cause and due process, immoral, uncivilized and barbaric. There's no place in the Ontario Labour Relations Act and it's totally unacceptable to us in whole or in part.

We were even asked if we'd take a watered-down version by some of our friends who were opposed to Bill 80. Would you take a complaints mechanism-driven sort of thing? Our answer's no. Something is either right or it's wrong, and no part of this, in our opinion, is right. If it is, it should apply equally to every citizen, every union, every constitution.

We expect to be back in a short period of time asking the next government to revoke this bill in its entirety. Thank you for your attention.

The Acting Chair: There are 24 minutes in balance, which leaves eight minutes for each caucus, beginning with the New Democrats in this round.

Mr Cooper: First of all, I think there's a misunderstanding here. Section 138.3, the alteration of local jurisdiction, I believe you were talking about peace agreements, and that's intertrade, like between carpenters and electricians. This bill doesn't address that; it's intratrade. So it's two locals of the same parent. That's where the jurisdiction comes in. Other jurisdictional matters are already handled. Is that what you were referring to in your presentation?

Mr Tersigni: It could have been, Mr Cooper, but I think I can explain it. You may be right in 138. The definition of jurisdiction that's included in the bill includes geographic, sectoral and work jurisdiction, and 138.3 uses the words "jurisdiction...constitution or otherwise." What's "or otherwise"? "Or otherwise" must be something other than a constitution where you find those avenues of resolving these problems. Well, they're contained here in the principal agreement and they're contained in the BNA book.

If you go on to 138.5, you have the autonomy of a local trade union affected by a council. As I explained in the letter we worked out and negotiated between the electricians and the linemen, that's internal. If you go back to a problem between ourselves and the carpenters, the international union has the authority to make an agreement to resolve a dispute between ourselves and the carpenters by the constitution.

If you go the collective agreement and read 509, you'll say the fact that we can't have a work stoppage is the problem. Submit it to Washington or take it to the Ontario Labour Relations Board. What we're saying is, if we don't like the deal, our autonomy in 138.5 has been interfered with directly or indirectly by the international president, who's given the authority by the constitution, which shows up in the BNA book.

I hope you're right. I hope that sort of thing can happen under here, but when you read the language and read the definition in context with and take a look at the definition of autonomy, I think there's a good argument for that. I might sometimes want to use that against my international.

1700

Mr Ryan: What we want to point out here is that in a jurisdiction like Ontario, where you have in the IBEW 13 local unions, there could be a problem in one particular local union that takes the international to come in to try to resolve in.

You may get into a type of situation that Ralph alluded to where it involves the situation between the UA and the IBEW in one particular local union's area but could cross all boundaries to other local unions in the province and in fact in Canada and the United States, and the two internationals attempt to resolve it once and for all so that they can come to a conclusion. It could be that one local union only in the province of Ontario feels that this action being taken by the two parent unions has impact on its autonomy as it sees it with regard to its work jurisdiction.

But as we understand the bill, in order to alter that, before the international could do that, it would have to go and make an application for an alteration. This can delay the process and cause a lot of complications for the other 12 local unions in the province and other unions in Canada and the United States as well because of one particular local union and its concerns.

Mr Cooper: I think the part I'm trying to point out here is that Bill 80 would only cover a jurisdictional dispute between two locals of one parent, so two IBEW locals.

Mr Tersigni: Excuse me, sir.

Mr Ryan: We don't see it that way.

Mr Tersigni: Look at subsection 138.3(1).

Mr Cooper: All right. Subsection 138.3(1).

Mr Tersigni: "Whether established under a constitution or otherwise." I hope you're right, but what does "or otherwise" mean? What could that mean? "Otherwise" would mean some other kind of mechanism, and we've researched this book, sir.

If you're right I hope maybe you can clarify that. If that can be clarified, then part of the fear has been relieved. "Or otherwise" would have to be something other than the constitution. These are the things that I know about. There's this and there's this. That jurisdiction, you see, was part of the IBEW's when we took it to court back in 1978 and we were only after the stress-relieving end of it because it was 600 votes electrical.

If you look at the exhibit, I guess what happened down in Washington was that Ward said to Pillard, "If you want something, you've got to give me something." So we got ourselves into the stress-relieving and at the same damn time they gave away the instrumentation. They made a deal, but the deal applies to every jurisdiction in North America. If that's not the case and that can happen, then that's really good. I'm not so sure; I'm not a lawyer and I know they're going to make a lot of money when this is enacted.

The Acting Chair: Thank you very much. You have eight minutes, Mr Miclash.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I must say, as you know, that Mr Mahoney had something else to go on to so I'm sort of filling in for him. I just have a few questions here that he's asked me to pose as well.

If you were to amend your current constitution, how would you go about amending that?

Mr Tersigni: You'll find that in the constitution, but basically what happens is that there's a convention every five years, the constitution spells out how the local union delegates have to be elected and then the local union or a combination of local unions would put resolutions into the international convention for adoption.

If you wanted to restrict the authority of the international president, then you'd go to the one I had pointed out, which is on page 12. I think it's highlighted. We would put in a resolution that says he can no longer make these agreements. If the whole body, and there have been some pretty serious challenges to different authorities on parts of the constitution -- so it would be like your convention; when you adopt a policy for your political party you go, you present a resolution -- we go by majority rules, and if they accept it, then the constitution's amended at the convention.

Mr Miclash: The other question I have is, you were talking about jurisdictional disputes over geography and work jurisdiction. How are these disputes resolved?

Mr Tersigni: There are many ways that they're resolved. The geographic jurisdiction: Really, I think the last problem we had was Local 594 from Pembroke. The international thought they should really no longer continue to exist because they were down to something like 40 members and really couldn't pay their own way. I guess they were in financial difficulty. They went in, looked at it and turned that jurisdiction over to Ottawa, Local 586, of which they were a part some years ago.

I believe that was challenged in the Ontario Labour Relations Act, and the government found after the hearing that the international, in the constitution, had the authority to make that amalgamation.

One thing I know of that has happened was where our international president two or three years ago said, "You people are going to organize" -- the construction industry -- "you're going to open up the doors to these private clubs and take people in." On the east coast where people refused to do that and open up their doors and organize electrical workers in the IBEW, I think he amalgamated three or four locals in one district into one. We've been operating that way as long as this has been around.

Mr Miclash: According to your brief, you're certainly not in favour of the bill. You've indicated that you would have it revoked in its entirety. From your perspective, can you come up with any idea as to why the present government is actually putting Bill 80 forth?

Mr Tersigni: Well, I think I pointed that out in the brief. I would say right now, put Bill 80 to the test. A constitution's a constitution. If it's good for us, it should be good for everyone, including yourselves. You people have constitutions and conventions; you adopt policy. Are we the only bad guys? Can none of you guys ever make a mistake?

The minister himself should know what the hell I'm talking about. It was his international that had one of the longest trusteeships in the history of this province. Why is that union not subject to the same scrutiny we are? I ask you, put it to the test. Do you think this bill would get through the Ontario Federation of Labour?

Mr Miclash: Doubtful.

Mr Tersigni: I don't know. If it does, if it's good for one, it should be good for everybody.

Our biggest problem is, we feel we've been acted upon arbitrarily, and you've got to admit, it is arbitrary. We're the only ones singled out in this bill. There are a lot of other international unions. Maybe they're all perfect. Maybe they're all holy. I don't think so. I'm not saying we're completely white. Sure, there have been problems. You heard some of them and they might be justified.

Mr Miclash: Great. Thank you very much.

The Acting Chair: You still have about a minute and a half.

Mr Miclash: That's fine. Thank you.

The Acting Chair: Eight minutes, Mr Jordan.

Mr Jordan: Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation. The part that bothers me on this bill is that, as you pointed out, the constitution is really the heart and soul of the local or the parent union. It would appear that what caused the government to come forward with Bill 80 was abuse of power by the parent union over the constitution of the local union.

How long was this going on? Did you people make any presentations to the Minister of Labour to say: "We can solve these problems ourselves. We have the mechanisms here to do it. We don't need a law through the Ontario Legislature"? How did this thing get out of hand and over to the Minister of Labour for a settlement when you'd think it could have been handled internally?

Mr Tersigni: I'd like to know the answer to that myself. I'm not going to try to guess at why. As I said in my brief, I asked Mr Mackenzie -- and I don't believe he's a liar; I think he told me the truth a year ago when he said, "If it was my agenda, it would have been included in Bill 40." I have a lot of respect for that gentleman. So it's coming from somewhere else. The way I understood it, it was coming from up above. Where? I don't know, and I don't know why.

I'll tell you this: I've been around a long time. Bill Davis's government, with ministers of Labour like Bob Elgie and Bette Stephenson, I don't think had enough brains that knew to leave well enough alone. Everyone recognized, in even Davis's time, that our legislation was the best labour legislation anywhere in North America and it will stand the test, especially when you look south of the border at some of these right-of-work states. We've got section 1(4). Who the hell's got 1(4) like Ontario has? They had it in BC when the NDP was in. Then the other guys came in and they took it away from them. The NDP got back and they gave it back, but when they gave it back they couldn't make it retro.

1710

You see all these hammerheads out in Victoria. I said to an engineering friend of mine, "It's great to have all this work." He said, "Yeah, but they all went scab."

I believe the minister when he said, "If it was my agenda" -- and he's been around a long time -- "it would have been in Bill 40." So I can't answer that question, I'm sorry.

I did meet with Mr Peterson when there was trouble with the Laborers out in London. I think, from his opinion, what he was getting was that their international was acting unfairly; I think they might have been. But because one international in one area does that, does that mean we all have to be sacrificial lambs for one?

I say to you, put Bill 80 to the test. Scrutinize it by trial, by cross-reference. We're only into the two sections. I haven't got into the other end of it because I knew I didn't have time. I'll say this frankly and honestly: If Bill 80 is good -- and maybe it is -- why isn't it good right across unions? You're talking about a constitution, a parent body. Why isn't it good for your political parties? Put yourself to the test of what this says; then you'll understand where we're coming from.

A union's a union. As I pointed out, we're completely different from everyone else. We have locals we represent that have industrial bargaining units, have motor panel shops that this doesn't affect, because it only affects our construction divisions. What about all our maintenance guys who work out in service trucks? It doesn't affect them. It's not construction.

I think there has to be a lot more thought put into exactly what you're doing. I suppose if it can be narrowed down and put out in a manner that promotes union democracy, I'd be all in favour of it; I don't think this does in its present state.

Mr Jordan: Okay. Supposing we follow your suggestion and withdraw Bill 80 completely, now that these problems have been brought to the attention of the Legislature and the public generally, how fast and in what manner would the corrections or adjustments be made through your own constitution?

Mr Tersigni: What problems are you referring to specifically?

Mr Jordan: The problems that initiated Bill 80.

Mr Tersigni: Can you be more specific?

Mr Jordan: I'm not in any position to identify your problems, but from what I've been able to observe by listening and reading some of it, my understanding is that something that to me is internal to the union has now been placed in the Legislature. I'm wondering, if it's taken out of the Legislature how you're going to handle it.

Mr Tersigni: What I would do is go right to the Ontario Labour Relations Board. I've been there before, against my own international. I'll give you the reference: general precedence maintenance agreements. The only relief I need is at the Ontario Labour Relations Board. There's unfair labour practice, no matter who does it, whether it's an employer, whether it's an international union. I mean, do you think we get along great all the time? Well, we don't; we have problems.

That's a mechanism for resolution. But my quickest -- bingo, two weeks -- was the Ontario Labour Relations Board, unfair labour practice. "You violated our collective agreement. You imposed an agreement on us that isn't valid under here." We go to the labour board.

Mr Jordan: Excuse me, but it was stated earlier that if I went there I would be named and my name would be known in the local or through from the international.

Mr Tersigni: So what?

Mr Jordan: I could lose my pension, I could lose my --

Mr Tersigni: I've been put on the docket with our own international; they had what you call a kangaroo court. The guy said, "You were drunk in Baybury," and went through 15 years of my -- I said: "Yes, I was drunk. So were you. So what? What's next?" On you go.

The Ontario Labour Relations Act gives us the recourse I think we need to leave the IBEW if we want, and that would be decided by a majority vote of our members if they so desired. That might happen some day.

If we're being treated by our international unfairly, I'd be right in front of the Ontario Labour Relations Board. The fellow in Pembroke who didn't like the amalgamation went to court. He had his day in court. I know that with this you can go there as well.

Mr Jordan: You're satisfied that the present mechanisms are there to solve this problem.

Mr Tersigni: Not only that, I do not want any government, whether Bill 80's right or not, interfering in the constitution of our union, because it transcends the constitution; it gets into our collective bargain agreement. We've got God-damned employers, excuse the language, in here. Why aren't they here? I'll bloody well tell you why they're not here: because they're just sitting on the sidelines.

My biggest fear is, when this is all said and done, they'll say: "What are you guys bitching about? Our labour-friendly government did this to you. Why can't we go in and amend the damn mobility thing you've got in here, in this constitution?" which we've had for 100 years in our collective agreement that they can't touch. That's the problem I've got, not so much with what Bill 80's supposed to be, to protect democratic rights. I believe in all those things. I don't like governments interfering in our internal affairs.

Mr Jordan: I agree with you.

The Acting Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Tersigni and Mr Ryan. I appreciate your coming in to present your views.

BOILERMAKER CONTRACTORS' ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO

The Acting Chair: The next presenters are Mr Fanelli and Mr Schel from the Boilermaker Contractors' Association of Ontario. If you would come forward, please.

You have half an hour. You can use the full half-hour in any way you wish; however, the committee would appreciate some time at the end to ask some questions. So if you use up all your time, then we don't get to ask any questions. I'll let you decide how you're going to do that. You can begin any time. Please identify yourself on the record for Hansard.

Mr John Schel: Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess you can hear me?

The Acting Chair: We have speakers.

Mr Schel: My name is John Schel. I'm the president of the Boilermaker Contractors' Association of Ontario, and with me is Mr Tony Fanelli. He's the chairman of our board of directors.

I've passed out to Tannis a copy of our submission, which I assume has been distributed. What we've tried to do is to be as restrictive as possible in the amount of words we've used. We've tried to give you some idea of where we're coming from, where we're at and what our concerns are. It's my understanding that we're probably the first group that represents employers to speak to you today. I'm not going to read this brief; I'm just going to try to explain the highlights of it. I'll try to keep my submission as brief as possible to open it up for questions.

The first page deals with our history, and that's important for us because what we're concerned about, of course, is the evolution of how we came to be and why we are where we are today, not only as the BCA of Ontario, as we refer to ourselves, but also as the BCA of Newfoundland and the other provinces which we're also associated with.

The history shows that our contractors have worked in some capacity with the locals and the internationals well back into the 1950s, according to the records I have in my offices. Over that period, we worked a relationship such that we have what we believe is the best of both worlds, the best of conditions for our workers and good conditions for employers. This was not done overnight, as I've indicated. It was done through the process of dealing with the reality of the fact that labour laws are on a province-by-province basis and setting up organizations that are sensitive to that province-by-province basis.

1720

The end product we have today is that we negotiate one collective agreement which is valid in eight provinces as well as the Northwest Territories. Since 1988, we've now gone back as the Boilermaker Contractors' Association of British Columbia into BC, where we have a collective agreement in place. I may add as well that based on recent discussions in Quebec there may very well be the outside possibility, in part thanks to the government of Ontario, for allowing our form of association to re-establish itself in Quebec.

The concern and why we've developed the way we are into a series of provincial associations is the reality of the group we work with, which of course is the boilermaker union, and the fact that, as anybody who works in the construction industry recognizes, there are ups and downs of the marketplace with any particular province and in the country as a whole. As we've indicated on page 2, the result is that there are times that up to 40% of the Ontario boilermakers are working outside of the province of Ontario.

At times there are major shutdowns or major construction. For example, the oil sands in Fort McMurray, Alberta, was not able to be done by boilermakers resident in Alberta -- it was just too massive a project -- and there was a great deal of Ontario boilermaker work there.

The concern we have is if there are changes in Bill 80 which result in some restructuring of what currently exists between the locals and the international, or some break-off into some other bodies from the various locals that exist today within the international, as employers we're going to be restricted in the amount of workers we have available to us to work outside the province of Ontario, and also inside the province of Ontario.

Within the province of Ontario, we are the registered designated authority for employers in the ICI sector, and I appreciate that Bill 80 does respect our rights to maintain that type of relationship. But I was doing a little work last night on man-hour studies, and it shows that in the last two or three years approximately one third of the boilermaker union's man-hours have been in our sector. What other sectors the boilermakers have worked in, obviously I don't know, because it's not within my knowledge, although I do know they do an awful lot of work in the electrical power systems sector. A concern we have is to presume that some other union will take over in the electrical power systems sector. Those workers who go there will not be accessible to us; hence, when we have a heavy workload in Ontario we may find ourselves -- I say this with a bit of embarrassment, being a resident of Ontario -- having to go outside the province to find skilled tradesmen to come into Ontario to do our jobs here in Ontario. It is a fear for us. That is the result we can see.

The concern we have is that in this evolution we built up over time, when we negotiate, we negotiate with the local and the international president. We're not here to in any way talk about the constitutions between the local union and the international, because we really don't know. It's none of our business, just like it's none of the union's business about our constitutions. We appreciate that. But we have a concern that there's an imbalance created which is going to jeopardize jobs for us.

We are a unionized contractors' association. I take pride in saying that because our sister associations in other provinces right now are having some major problems because of the various other ways of going about doing construction work, specifically non-union, vertical unions and things of that nature.

What we've managed to do through the relationship we've built is, for example, in the province of Ontario, employers contributed $1.5 million in 1991-92 to put into training and education and apprenticeship programs for boilermakers here in Ontario.

We have put into place a national pension plan, so that if a boilermaker works in Alberta or he works in Newfoundland, it goes into the same pension plan. The same exists with the health and welfare plan. We put all those things into place.

The way we see it from our perspective is that many of these policies were put into place by the leadership of the international, who had the wherewithal to tell us that it would be good to have pension plans, that to organize among the various locals across Canada is to their benefit.

We agree with them. We believe they have one of the best pension plans. At the bargaining table we call it a Cadillac plan. That has existed because of the cooperation they somehow have between them, and we're very concerned about anything that could take place to destroy that. Having said that, I'd like to turn it over to Mr Fanelli.

Mr Tony Fanelli: One of the items we have as an association in the province of Ontario with respect to the labour relations board is that this bill that's being talked about may change the policy in terms of how grievances or how issues need to be resolved in this province.

The labour relations board should operate as a complaint mechanism to deal with problems. The way to do that is, if a local or an international or a contractor has a problem with a collective agreement issue or any matter, that it be brought up as a complaint to the labour relations board. There is some fear that this bill may change that. If that happens, I think it would cause a lot of disruption in the marketplace, which then would hurt us as an employers' group, where the owners would look at other vehicles to do their construction work.

There are many members of our association who work closely with owners, and one of the main concerns we get hit with continually is disruptions on the job, work jurisdiction. Certainly we have a mechanism in place to resolve all those problems, and we feel the labour relations board has worked very well in resolving those issues.

If there's a problem that exists with a local or an international, it ultimately will show up on the job site. We certainly don't need that in these times we're now facing economically in this province, where the investment market has been very poor. So that's one of the main concerns from many of the contractors, that the board should operate, as I mentioned, on a complaint system, not on a policy. This bill will change some of that, we feel.

Mr Schel: We're open to questions, Madam Chairman.

The Acting Chair: You have about 18 minutes left in total. Before we begin, though, today is opposition day in the House and there will be a vote. The bells may start ringing, which requires the committee to rise and move to the House. Luckily, rotation starts with the Liberals, so the members who will not get to ask questions, if that does occur, will be the government side. We'll begin with Mr Miclash.

Mr Miclash: Thank you very much for your presentation. One of the main things I'm interested in is to hear from groups such as yours about why you see the present government bringing in this legislation. From your perspective, what do you see in this legislation in terms of why it would be coming forth?

Mr Schel: To be quite honest with you, I don't understand why. In fact, there have been changes in legislation in other provinces. The one I was quite involved with was the situation in Alberta a few years back, with Dr Reid at the time, where they made changes; nothing regarding Bill 80, but changes in labour law in general within the construction industry.

I mentioned that because at the end of the day -- patting myself on the back a little bit -- they did follow the suggestions I made. I was the only non-Albertan involved in the process. At the end of the day, they set up a tribunal to review the whole thing and accepted our nominee as the employer representative, which I thought was quite a pat on the back.

If you look at the legislation there, it's single-trade, province-wide bargaining. That's what we asked for and that's what we got at the end of the day. It's working well. In fact, for the most part I take pride when I'm asked by various governments across the country, "What should we look at as a standard bearer?" More often than not, in fact most times, I suggest looking at the Ontario legislation and also looking at the Ontario Labour Relations Board, because I believe the current Ontario Labour Relations Board is truly concerned with the intent of what the parties should be doing rather than playing around with what we as employers, some of our employers, try to do, play games to get around their commitment as a unionized employer. I think the Ontario board stands above everybody else in that regard. Based on that, I see no reason there needs to be any change.

1730

Mr Miclash: Tony, you touched on a point in terms of the effect this legislation will have on jobs. Could you expand a little about how you see that it would affect existing jobs, jobs presently being held, and the creation of new jobs down the road? How will Bill 80 affect these?

Mr Fanelli: If there are any situations which arise where a local union, through its own democratic process, cannot see itself through in resolving its particular problems through its own international, the feeling is that it would take its bargaining rights and would take its entire autonomy outside of its present role and begin to establish its own. Employers like us, because we have province-wide bargaining, work in all areas of this province, and if one particular union or local wanted to step outside the present boundaries it now holds, it would cause a disruption in the job. Transfer of employees would become a difficulty. Sister locals wouldn't want to have transfers that open and that readily. When we work in the province of Quebec, as an example, there are doors that are not open to transfer employees.

There's an array of problems that could arise as a result of this type of legislation, and we feel the system that is presently in place has worked very, very well. Any changes put in place would change the security owners have, in terms of a unionized workforce, to carry on construction work on their site, and we're concerned about that. It certainly has the potential of altering present jobs, where a local may decide it needs to take a different path, and it certainly may change the way work gets done in the future. Those are the concerns.

Mr Miclash: I appreciate that. Do either of you know of any other jurisdiction where the government has the power that Bill 80 will bring in, any other jurisdiction at all?

Mr Schel: None across this country that I'm aware of.

The Acting Chair: Mr Jordan, six minutes.

Mr Jordan: Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation. I'm right in understanding that this is an employers' union?

Mr Schel: We are an employers' association. I represent 300 employers across Canada.

Mr Jordan: Companies?

Mr Schel: Companies, yes.

Mr Jordan: Which puts you in a unique position relative to the other people we've had coming forward on this issue.

You mentioned, Mr Fanelli, that presently your problems are well served through the Ontario Labour Relations Board and you fear a change coming there. Is it in more power to the board or is it in --

Mr Fanelli: If the board were allowed to commence interpreting the internal operations of a union, whatever comes out of that may ultimately find itself on a job site, which would cause problems on a job site, which would cause possibilities of job disruptions on a site. Those are the kinds of things that owners and employers certainly are concerned about. The system we have in this province has generally worked well in resolving the problems with employers, with unions, with locals and certainly with internationals.

From an employer's standpoint, we do not want to get involved in the internal operations of a union. That's entirely up to them. They have their own conventions, they have their own meetings to try and set their bylaws and constitutional laws. But the moment there's a possibility that those problems may find themselves on the job site, then yes, that's a concern to all of us in the industry.

Mr Jordan: Basically, then, you stand to more or less lose the autonomy or the control of something you've worked towards for a considerable length of time. When it comes to settling a dispute or an issue, you're going to have government intervention through the board?

Mr Fanelli: I don't quite understand your question.

Mr Jordan: The constitution is what you go by now.

Mr Fanelli: The unions do.

Mr Jordan: Well, you have a constitution also, your association.

Mr Fanelli: Sure.

Mr Jordan: So you go by that also, to settle your disputes and if it can't be settled there you go to the board. No?

Mr Schel: Our constitution doesn't speak to grievances. A grievance is an issue because of a dispute within the terms of the collective agreement. If either side has a problem with that, then they can go to the labour relations board to handle the complaint. Our constitution deals with employers in our organization: what services we provide for them and what they have to provide to us, namely, their bargaining rights to speak on their behalf, that sort of thing.

Our interaction is with the union where there is a dispute with the employer, not really the association, because we negotiate collective agreements and things of that nature. Those disputes are then taken to the board to be resolved if we can't resolve it among ourselves.

The Acting Chair: No more questions, Mr Jordan? Then six minutes, beginning with Mr Cooper and then Mr Hope.

Mr Cooper: First of all, I'd like to thank you for your presentation as an employer group. I can understand where you have a bit of concern about what's happening. I'm trying to figure out, is some of your concern about the successorship or disaffiliation clause in the original bill?

Mr Schel: Not necessarily, Mr Cooper. It relates to a number of things. One thing we don't mention in our brief is the section with regard to the health and welfare and pension plans where you must have representation from the local equal to the number of members relative to the whole body, if it's a multiprovincial type of plan. Well, we have a multiprovincial type of plan.

First, it's jointly trusteed, so we take management out of the picture because this bill only speaks to the union side of it. I believe what it says is that the Ontario local or locals must be proportionate to the number of members who are inside the plan.

In Ontario, the boilermakers have two locals. One local is all in the province of Ontario. The second local extends from Thunder Bay to the Saskatchewan-Alberta border. Now, is that person an Ontario representative? If he is, there's no problem. If he isn't, does that mean what the business manager in one of the other construction locals in Canada has to step down?

The unions set this up, on their side, how they want to be represented, and they made sure that every business manager of every construction local that's in the plan has a seat. So there are more locals than there are internationals, if you want to make a split, but those locals aren't necessarily from Ontario, because it's a national plan.

What do we do with it? Do we carve Ontario out? It doesn't make sense, because the reason we went that way was to allow people to transfer back and forth to reduce the overall cost of administration, and now we want to tear it apart? Or do we let them in and out depending on the workloads in Ontario, which go up and down like every other province?

Mr Jordan: Mostly down.

Mr Schel: Unfortunately, right now it's down.

The Acting Chair: Across the country.

Mr Schel: I wouldn't quite say that, Madam Chair, because our man-hours in British Columbia are up.

What do we do with it? I don't know. Right now the way it's working, everybody on the union side is happy with it. As management, we find ourselves on a pension or health and welfare plan to be the cost-conscious people, because usually we find the union members want to keep buying more benefits, and as management people we say: "Wait a sec. We're prepared to let you go buy it, providing we can afford it." That's at risk.

Mr Cooper: One more question before I defer. Right now with our committee hearings, there is the chance that Bill 80 may not become law until next spring. Would it be beneficial to you, as an employer group, to have this sitting out there that long? As the government seems to be committed to passing this bill, would you rather see the legislation sooner or later?

1740

Mr Schel: Personally, I'd rather not see the legislation at all. The way I look at it is, if this legislation goes through and the worst-case scenario takes place, our association will adjust to whatever we have to do. But to be quite honest with you, and I guess the reason we decided to ask for a seating here, is to let you know our concerns. I suspect most of our counterparts have taken the position, "Let's not bother coming."

We will react to it. The unfortunate thing as I see it is that it's going to be detrimental to the residents of the province of Ontario. We as employers will continue to do our business. Unfortunately, we may have to find our tradesmen in other provinces because the tradesmen we're paying all the money to train here may have gone to another union. Being a national body ourselves, by adding up all our various provincial associations, we're caught in a quandary. Maybe it's best to get this thing off the table as quickly as possible.

Mr Hope: I'm still having a hard time with this, as one who understands master bargaining. You represent a number of employers. What stops one more bargaining agent from coming to the table and representing the specific concern of a group of individuals, and they are of the trade? I question that. Where's the problem with the employers for a bargaining agent -- it might be a different name, but it has a specific concern of its members -- sitting at the bargaining table negotiating these items? I was looking through the IBEW brief, and it clearly sets out jurisdictions, it clearly sets out areas. What's the problem? Why would it be such a problem to have another bargaining agent there at a table?

Mr Schel: I'm not sure who you're --

Mr Hope: It was one of the exhibits that was handed to us earlier, which clearly outlines -- as one who has dealt with master bargaining, I'm questioning where the problem would be. If one local has specific concerns of its membership to be aired at a bargaining table, where does that lose the balance?

Mr Schel: I'm not sure I totally understand your question, but let me try to answer it this way. In various provinces, the various associations are the registered bargaining agencies for the ICI sector, and by now you must know that's industrial, commercial and institutional. We are registered in Ontario as the BCA of Ontario; that's it. In Alberta, it's the BCA of Alberta; the same in New Brunswick, the BCA of New Brunswick.

We negotiate only in the ICI sector, yet the union members we have the ability to employ work in other sectors besides our sector. An example here in Ontario is the electrical power systems sector. The example I was using was that if another group decided to carve out the EPSCA sector, the Electrical Power Systems Construction Association, and go with another group -- not the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers but the Canadian brotherhood of whatever -- we have no privity of contract with them because we don't negotiate that collective agreement. EPSCA in the province of Ontario is our counterpart to negotiate with the Boilermakers. I sit on that committee as a member of it, but I don't negotiate.

Mr Hope: But you represent a group of employers covering a geographic area.

Mr Schel: Yes.

Mr Hope: I'm now the leader of one of these dissidents that's being referred to that has the labour force you're looking for, and I'm saying that if you want some of that labour force, you're now going to negotiate with me, representing those workers. There might be four or five different unions, but we're all sitting at the table. We're going to air our concerns and we're going to draw up a book like this that will have a local agreement when you use my workforce. I still don't understand the problem. I guess what I'm trying to get at is, from an employer's perspective, where your problem is.

The Acting Chair: About one minute.

Mr Schel: Would you represent the ICI sector for the union if you were the person?

Mr Hope: I'm saying I'm representing one of these dissidents out there. I'm representing the local union.

Mr Schel: If you're representing this dissident and he's taken a group of Boilermaker members and gone into this other sector, I can't touch him because I don't negotiate that agreement. I'm not designated to negotiate with him. I can only negotiate in the ICI sector. What I've lost is the ability to have those people work in my sector, because he's now in a different union.

Mr Hope: Let's say I stayed in the ICI sector. I got my local union autonomy, which you didn't want to be involved in. We've cleared up my local union autonomy, and I've got the workers you need. I'm an ICI labour force. Why can't I sit at the table and negotiate?

Mr Schel: I see two problems. One is that I think the draft legislation singles out the ICI sector, the current system where you have the councils and whatever. That's problem number one.

Problem number two that I see is that we could maybe argue the fact that yes, we're prepared to come to the table, but we know in reality that to sit there with all these various locals across Canada and this other group in there to represent a portion of the members for a portion of the province is going to be a very chaotic situation.

Maybe we've been lucky, because we've never had a strike in our history: coast to coast, anywhere, we've never had a strike. We've used your conciliation services quite a bit, but the reality is that with the professionalism that exists between our association and the unions, and really to a great extent the international because they've been around so long, they know us well enough that when we get into a real argument they become effectively like a mediator. It all seems to work.

The Acting Chair: Thank you very much. We appreciate it. You are the first employer who has come forward since we've started the hearings; thus far, one of the few I think that has taken the time to come forward, so it's much appreciated.

Mr Schel: We'd like to thank you for inviting us and thank you very much for listening to us.

The Acting Chair: Thank you. This committee is adjourned until Wednesday at 3:30.

The committee adjourned at 1746.